| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Antarctic claims
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Antarctic claims

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Knights View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4089
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Antarctic claims
    Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 08:08
Since first being explored by humans, Antarctica has never been formally administered by any single power. At present there are 7 official claimants to territory in Antarctica (by the UK, Australia, Chile, Argentina, Norway, New Zealand and France), and Brazil also unofficially lays claim to a portion.

Here is a visual depiction of these claims:


Source: http://www.12voltbar.com/keyhole/maps/antarctic_claims.jpg

It is evident that only New Zealand and Norway's claims do not overlap the claims of any other nation. Antarctica's history has been characterised by intense rhetoric and political push-and-shove about claims to the enormous landmass - particularly between the UK and Argentina. It was only after proper attention was given to the Antarctic in the late 1950s (through International Geological Year, and a number of conventions), that some agreements were reached about official 'claims'. The Madrid protocol is the current overriding agreement on the Antarctic's ownership and utilisation.

But affairs are not completely settled, and despite an obvious facade of international unity and cooperation in the Antarctic, numerous nations are still eyeing their claims to Antarctica and its potential utility value (resources and tourism primarily).

My question to you - what to do? How should overlapping claims be dealt with, if at all? What are your thoughts on both historical and present claims to portions of Antarctica - for instance, do you think any specific nations have a right to territories?

Look forawrd to hearing your opinions Smile

Sincerely,

- Knights -
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: Norwich, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 5544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 09:35
I say that Australia and NZ should divide the Terra Australis into two and that'd be the end of it.
 
I mean, they already claim the most area... why not it all then?
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 09:39
Not gonna be a problem for a very long time. By then the geopolitical scene will be different, so it's difficult to make any predictions. 
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: Norwich, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 5544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 09:43
Also, there's no real use for Antarctica (except demanding money from researchers but that has been prohibited, I believe). So, until it melts down and becomes a decent land-mass, there are not many uses for the land there.
 
Which brings me to a question -- have we already found out what the land under the Antarctica ice-mass is? I think I once saw a picture but I'm not so sure any longer.
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4089
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 09:55
Rider - Antarctica is a veritable hotspot for numerous mineral resources, as well as energy sources, fisheries...and of course there's the tourism and research element.

Water, obviously, is a bountiful resource in the form of ice. I've heard people suggest that icebergs could be "towed" from Antarctic waters to drought affected regions of Australia LOL But yes, it does have an incredible amount of freshwater.

Then you have minerals and energy sources like Cobalt, Oil, Chromium, Coal, Platinum, Iron, Geothermal/Hydrological/Wind energy...the list goes on (particularly in regards to metallic minerals).  Antarctica has vast fisheries too.

So I'm quite adamantly of the opinion that there is a real use for Antarctica Wink
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: Norwich, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 5544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 10:07
Wait. Energy. Antartica is the middle of nowhere (Southern Ocean). You can create that energy, but unless you store it away (wouldn't that be a laugh, storing energy in Antarctica...) you'd have no real use for it. And I don't think such efficient storage methods have been created yet.
 
The cobalt, oil and whatnot should all be under two kilometers of ice, or am I mistaken in that? No Earthly drill (I believe) is able to go through all that... ice...
 
Towing icebergs is a bad idea... and I don't think it can work either.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 10:37
Better put it on some kind of UN protection or ownership in the future so there will not be any conflicts among different states about it.
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 540
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 11:26
Claims yes, and unexploitable resources (or maybe I'm wrong?). Neither did Russia know in the past that Siberia was so rich in resources. I'm just interested if those resources Knights says are exploitable now and which ones...


Edited by Illirac - 15 Aug 2009 at 11:45
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 15:14

It is so absurd that tinny countries from the antipodes, like Norway, wanted to spread its territories so far away. Even the claims of Britain and France are just an idiotic projection of the colonial times and a forgotten glory. They should stay in Europe solving theirs economical and domestic problems, instead.

For the countries of the region, it make more sense to claim rights to the Antarctic, including Australia and New Zealand. Even the U.S., that has the largest presence in the Antartida if we consider gear alone, it doesn't seem interesting in having a chunk of the place.

By the way, the only place where you can "settle" the Antarctida with certain sucess is the Antartic Peninsulae, just across Patagonia. All the trips to Antartida start in Chile or Argentina.
 
 
For Chile, in fact, the Antarctic peninsulae is just a projection of South America. We have bases in the Antartida including a town with a permanent settlement there.
 
By the way, Chile and Argentina usually rescue from dead to several "conquistadors" that have problem with theirs ships sinking in the Antarctida.
 
Villa las estrellas (The stars village). Chilean town in Antartida.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 15 Aug 2009 at 15:17
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 15:36
Originally posted by Knights Knights wrote:

Rider - Antarctica is a veritable hotspot for numerous mineral resources, as well as energy sources, fisheries...and of course there's the tourism and research element.
 
The research has been done for almost a century and there are permanent bases in there. Why do you need more research. With respect to fishery, the seas worldiwide are exploited as routine by ships that are self sufficient. You don't need to found fisher towns in the Antartida to do the job. That doesn't have sense.
 
Now, let's go to minerals. Yes, the Antarctic has minerals, like anywhere else. But the question is how much money it is need to exploit it. And I tell you is a lot cheaper to exploit mines in the traditonal regions that in the Antartida. I bet a place like the Andes has more minerals than anything the Antartida can produce.
 
And oil. Well, when are you guys going to forget oil and coal. We don't need it anymore, but we need to get rid of them.

Originally posted by Knights Knights wrote:


Water, obviously, is a bountiful resource in the form of ice. I've heard people suggest that icebergs could be "towed" from Antarctic waters to drought affected regions of Australia LOL But yes, it does have an incredible amount of freshwater.
 
But you don't need to settle the Antartida to do it. The only thing you need is to capture the icebergs that the Antartida throw continuosly to the see. With a small fraction of it you would have all the water Australia needs. Why it haven't been done so far? I have no idea.

 
Originally posted by Knights Knights wrote:


Then you have minerals and energy sources like Cobalt, Oil, Chromium, Coal, Platinum, Iron, Geothermal/Hydrological/Wind energy...the list goes on (particularly in regards to metallic minerals). 
 
This seem one of those dreams of conquistadors LOL. How are you so sure of the values of the minerals in the Antartida? How much would it cost to extract it, considering the population of workers you will need there living in conditions so harsh like in the outer space? As far as I know no serious drilling have been done in the Antartida at all to study the posibility to open a mine in there. And I tell you that knowing the topic. I am a Chilean and as you may know, here mining is a very important industry. No matter I am computer engineer, I know the methods of mining because our customers are mining companies. Besides my son is studying mining engineering.
Knowing that, I can tell you places like the Andes could produce ten times more minerals if needed. Why isn't that done? Simple. You only exploit what is cheap to exploit. The rest must remain where is it up to the point you can make money from it.
 
Originally posted by Knights Knights wrote:

Antarctica has vast fisheries too.
 
With the Japanese gula, I doubt a single fish will remain when the open season on Antartida begin.
Originally posted by Knights Knights wrote:


So I'm quite adamantly of the opinion that there is a real use for Antarctica Wink
 
The Antartida is used, right now, specially for tourism. However, the only places where it makes sense to start tourist tours are from South America. You get a ticket to see Southern South America, including places like Buenos Aires, then go to Patagonia and make a small jump to Antartida. Going to Antartida from other places would cost too much to make sense.
 
Now, if you introduce mining, for sure you are going to destroy the Antartida. Mining is one of the most siniester industries that exist, which destroy the environment as any other. We should think more if we want to preserve the Antartida, at least as a repository of water. We don't want to poisonning or water. Do we?
 


Edited by pinguin - 15 Aug 2009 at 15:42
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 16:30
I suspect the more immediate cause of serious dissension will be the parcelling out of the Arctic Ocean.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Windemere View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Location: U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Windemere Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 16:32
I'm in agreement that Antactica should be administered by the United Nations. That wouldn't preclude initiatives by individual nations, though. They could carry on their own tourism, research, use of natural-resources, etc., under the auspices of the United Nations.
Dis Aliter Visum
"Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 16:34
Cosign. I think the Antartida should be a patrimony of mankind. If a nation wants to put a small base in Antartida it should  follow the international rules, as is done so far.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 17:21
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

It is so absurd that tinny countries from the antipodes, like Norway, wanted to spread its territories so far away. Even the claims of Britain and France are just an idiotic projection of the colonial times and a forgotten glory. They should stay in Europe solving theirs economical and domestic problems, instead. 

Not absurd at all. It's unsettled territory: it should belong to whomever can and wants to live there. Norwegians are better suited than most, considering they have long experience with similar conditions. The Chilean or Argentine claim is only based on proximity, which is ridiculous. If they are willing and do start settle it, then they deserve it.

Anyhow, the Arctic is as mentioned the real hotstop. 

Quote
Now, if you introduce mining, for sure you are going to destroy the Antartida. Mining is one of the most siniester industries that exist, which destroy the environment as any other. We should think more if we want to preserve the Antartida, at least as a repository of water. We don't want to poisonning or water. Do we?

Well, I think there is no reason to be worried about the Antarctic environment during our lifetimes. Mining through kilometers of ice is not really economically viable. By the time the last continent will start gaining importance, the world population might be so large that indeed water is its most valuable resource. This won't happen  until several generations from now though.



Edited by Styrbiorn - 15 Aug 2009 at 17:49
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 00:51
Obviously, few people are cognizant of the consequences to the International Geophysical Year of 1957, whose emphasis on Antarctic research led to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which was followed by a litany of subsequent agreements: see and inquire on all of the ramifications from this basic site with interwoven links:
 
 
For details on IGY-1957
 
 
Now as to what is under the glaciers and ice cap of the South Pole, well under miles of ice you would hit crust, but the weight of the ice has so depressed the land mass that any general melt would essentially produce island archipelagos corresponding to those land masses already above sea level. Cartographically, it is an old question as summarized by this sound compilation of historical acrtography by R. V. Tooley:
 
 
The June 2009 issue of Nature published a summary of the 2004-2008 radar mapping of the region and clearly understood the consequences of ice depths in the 3000 meter range. The East Antarctic does have its ice mantle over bedrock, but the depth of the ice mass would ensure that "sinkage" and rising ocean levels carry consequences as to what percentage of land would break the surface. Study of the Gamburtsev Range as set forth by the journal did take even the global warmers by surprise. The West Antarctic is entirely different, the bulk of its present surface is ice and constitutes the ecosystem's only marine ice shelf! Gone the ice, gone all solid surface (sorry Aussies and Anzies, your land claims would evaporate). Follow these links to access popular expositions of the science:
 
 
For those that want to delve into the ice sheet use this link:
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 16 Aug 2009 at 00:54
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 01:17
France & Norway have a claims??
Originally posted by Knights Knights wrote:

Water, obviously, is a bountiful resource in the form of ice. I've heard people suggest that icebergs could be "towed" from Antarctic waters to drought affected regions of Australia LOL But yes, it does have an incredible amount of freshwater.

Yeah, the Saudis actually towed one to Adelaide a few years ago IIRC as an experiment.
Originally posted by Pinguin Pinguin wrote:

For the countries of the region, it make more sense to claim rights to the Antarctic, including Australia and New Zealand. Even the U.S., that has the largest presence in the Antartida if we consider gear alone, it doesn't seem interesting in having a chunk of the place.

Yes they are, they just refuse to recognise anyones claims thereby reserving the right to go anywhere.
Quote The research has been done for almost a century and there are permanent bases in there. Why do you need more research.

In order to create global warming panic stories of course!
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 01:55
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Not absurd at all. It's unsettled territory: it should belong to whomever can and wants to live there. Norwegians are better suited than most, considering they have long experience with similar conditions. The Chilean or Argentine claim is only based on proximity, which is ridiculous. If they are willing and do start settle it, then they deserve it....

 
That's the point. Norwegian don't deserve it. Such a small country of a couple of million people, but with such high ambitions at the antipodes. They don't even had the streng to enforce anything so far from home (they aren't Britain, either). Yep, they better stop to kill the whales of the Antartida or they will receive a lesson, sooner or later.
 
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 01:59
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

... The West Antarctic is entirely different, the bulk of its present surface is ice and constitutes the ecosystem's only marine ice shelf! Gone the ice, gone all solid surface (sorry Aussies and Anzies, your land claims would evaporate). ...
 
LOLLOL
 
That's a good one.
 
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 09:51
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
That's the point. Norwegian don't deserve it. Such a small country of a couple of million people, but with such high ambitions at the antipodes. They don't even had the streng to enforce anything so far from home (they aren't Britain, either). Yep, they better stop to kill the whales of the Antartida or they will receive a lesson, sooner or later.
 
 

Of course they deserve it, if they can do it. As usual you deliberately misunderstand. The whales doesn't belong to you or anyone else either. What Norwegian whale hunt has to do with this topic I fail to realize, since they are hunting not endangered minke whales in Northern oceans.



Edited by Styrbiorn - 16 Aug 2009 at 09:59
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 14:07

Hey guys, unless all are dreaming of a "Fashoda Incident" among the penguins, contemplating the foundations of a new "scramble" for a land (or ice) mass is a bit ludicrous. While one might ponder the improbabilities of an ice melt (and most scientists view it as an impossibility in the absence of a massive planetary axial shift), existing international laws and treaties make the assertion of individual sovereignties rather remote. After all, even in the Arctic the "scramble" there has taken on the characteristics of a comic opera. Besides, is anyone here entertaining a Forum name change from All Empires to All Politics?  Hmm, isn't imperialism a form of foreign policy?Ermm

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 14:21
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

...Of course they deserve it, if they can do it. As usual you deliberately misunderstand. The whales doesn't belong to you or anyone else either. What Norwegian whale hunt has to do with this topic I fail to realize, since they are hunting not endangered minke whales in Northern oceans.
 
Norwigians and Japanese are the two countries that still hunt whales. They are destroying a resource that is helping tourism in our region. By the way, the fact they are killed in other oceans doesn't mean they aren't the same whales that we have here.
Anyways, if they enter our territorial waters to hunt our whales they would be captured and put in jail for a while, that's for sure.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 14:23
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

...Besides, is anyone here entertaining a Forum name change from All Empires to All Politics?  Hmm, isn't imperialism a form of foreign policy?Ermm
 
That's a good name.
 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 15:06
Even, eco-tourism to the wilds of the Antarctic coast--well really mostly to the shelf ice--is an expensive proposition in terms of public outlays as several recent incidents have underscored. And Pinguin, no one recognizes either Chile's or Argentina's claim to nautical sovereignty as extensions from Tierra del Fuego (just as no one treats Canadian pretensions over Arctic waters as an internal sea seriously).
 
If one is serious, maintaining a permanent exploitative presence in Antarctica is as remote a possibility as contemplating Moon Base Alpha or the "colonization" of Mars! Somehow, one wonders if societies can be forced to rationalize the expenses involved much in the same way that Norway, Japan, and Island rationalize whaling. Here are two interesting articles:
 
 
 
That these blubberous miscreants (permit me the editorial color, please) do turn to Antarctic waters as a source of raw material for their culinary peculiarities [strange, though, I never saw whale sushi on any menu in Reykjavik, years ago) has nothing to do with the Antarctic Treaty save only as an example of the hypocrisy involved with many international agreements. I myself find it funny that the Norwegian government gets exorcised over this issue when it itself did nothing years ago to rescue a vibrant Merchant Marine! Years ago, more than I would like to recall, none could match the pleasure of being a passenger on one of the merchant vessels under Norwegian registry (my parents regularly traveled through these means, I even recall the name of one I sailed several times, the Herman Brovdig). Today, it is more a fiction when expressed in tonnage or as found here:
 
 
 
In all honesty, the Norwegian government could easily provide alternative employment for its maritime whaling enterprise without any serious social or economic dislocation--unless, of course, there is another party involved...foreign owned vessels under Norwegian registry.


Edited by drgonzaga - 16 Aug 2009 at 15:06
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 15:21
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Norwigians and Japanese are the two countries that still hunt whales. They are destroying a resource that is helping tourism in our region. By the way, the fact they are killed in other oceans doesn't mean they aren't the same whales that we have here.
Anyways, if they enter our territorial waters to hunt our whales they would be captured and put in jail for a while, that's for sure.

The Norwegians hunt in the Arctic oceans. I think you confuse them with the Japanese. If they'd enter Chilean waters the Chileans have of course all the rights in the world to prosecute them, just as Norwegians could prosecute Chilean illegal fishermen in Norse waters. The notion that these whales sometimes would enter Chilean waters is totally moot. So what if they help your tourism, they don't belong to you. There are plenty of wandering animals. Eels are salmon wandering over the oceans to Sweden to lay their eggs, and birds flying here to breed. They are all hunted wherever they pass. If we started demanding people to leave them be because it damages our economy people would laugh at us.

And neither are these whales endangered. Millions and millions of cows are killed in the Americas yearly, but when the Norwegians kill a few hundred whales out of a populations of 100.000+ everyone suddenly gets mightily offended. You can hardly notice the difference so I really doubt it hurts your economy. A quick check reveals that the Chilean whale spotting offers blue whales, humbacks and orcas - none of which are hunted.


Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

In all honesty, the Norwegian government could easily provide alternative employment for its maritime whaling enterprise without any serious social or economic dislocation--unless, of course, there is another party involved...foreign owned vessels under Norwegian registry.

In all honesty, the biggest problem with overfishing is the oversized Spanish fishing fleet exterminating marine life from large areas. The current Norwegian whalers hardly make a dent in the minke populations.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Hey guys, unless all are dreaming of a "Fashoda Incident" among the penguins, contemplating the foundations of a new "scramble" for a land (or ice) mass is a bit ludicrous.

Indeed, it's quite a moot discussion for generations to come. I think I said that in my first post as well.



Edited by Styrbiorn - 16 Aug 2009 at 15:27
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 15:36
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

 ... Millions and millions of cows are killed in the Americas yearly, but when the Norwegians kill a few hundred whales out of a populations of 100.000+ everyone suddenly gets mightily offended. You can hardly notice the difference so I really doubt it hurts your economy. A quick check reveals that the Chilean whale spotting offers blue whales, humbacks and orcas - none of which are hunted....
 
Even if norwegians don't kill our species, the simple fact they keep killing whales gave an excuse to Japanese to keep going and kill everything they need to make sushi. Angry
And indeed, Norwegian killings of whales is an action that is condemned worldwide, as much as Canadians killings small seals.
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 16:05
Eating meat is condemned world-wide, just not by everybody.
 
What worries me in general (and certainly offends my sense of the way things should be) is the 'ocean grab' of recent decades where whole swathes of ocean (including of course floating ice in the Antarctic that drgonzaga draws attention to) are seized under the pretext of their being 'territorial waters'.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 16:21
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Even if norwegians don't kill our species, the simple fact they keep killing whales gave an excuse to Japanese to keep going and kill everything they need to make sushi. Angry
Um, even if that's true that's the fault of the Japanese, not the Norwegians. 
Quote
And indeed, Norwegian killings of whales is an action that is condemned worldwide, as much as Canadians killings small seals.
What was it you said when the rest of world condemned South American intrusions into the rain forest? That they should mind their own business? Why do you poke your nose in Norway's business then? They've hunted whales since centuries before Castille and Aragons got their acts together and threw out the moors.


Edited by Styrbiorn - 16 Aug 2009 at 16:24
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 16:46

I see. Norwegians want to keep living like the vikings. Lol!

By the way, the so called "rain forest" of South America is INSIDE the national territories of several countries, mainly Brazil but also Peru,Colombia and Bolivia. There is nothing to "invade" or "discover" in territories that are actually part of those countries.
 
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 16:51
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

By the way, the so called "rain forest" of South America is INSIDE the national territories of several countries, mainly Brazil but also Peru,Colombia and Bolivia. There is nothing to "invade" or "discover" in territories that are actually part of those countries.

I was obviously talking about the deforestation. I know you realized that, so please stop the deliberate misunderstandings. They are not witty, merely annoying. The oxygen produced there travels everywhere, just as the whales hunted in Norway do. Arguing that the Norwegians shouldnät hunt whales because they travel somewhere else is similar to whining that the Brazilians are cutting the world's oxygen supply when they cut some trees.



Edited by Styrbiorn - 16 Aug 2009 at 16:51
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 16:59
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Even if norwegians don't kill our species, the simple fact they keep killing whales gave an excuse to Japanese to keep going and kill everything they need to make sushi. Angry
Um, even if that's true that's the fault of the Japanese, not the Norwegians. 
Quote
And indeed, Norwegian killings of whales is an action that is condemned worldwide, as much as Canadians killings small seals.
What was it you said when the rest of world condemned South American intrusions into the rain forest? That they should mind their own business? Why do you poke your nose in Norway's business then? They've hunted whales since centuries before Castille and Aragons got their acts together and threw out the moors.
 
Well, Styrbiorn, as much as I decry the drop in access to good calamares (specially those spaghetti-like angulhas [eel-lets]) let us not go into a precedence issue after all the sailors of the Bay of Biscay have been at the Atlantic fisheries gig long before Columbus got it into his head to sail West. Or should I start a thread and posit that Norway is really Denmark in disguise?Evil Smile
 
The problem here is more or less a question touching upon the industrialization of maritime fisheries and its indiscriminate technology.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.